The plaintiff manufactures and distributes perfumes of different brands. The defendant operates a search engine offering two AI-powered features that generate summaries of search results.

The case concerns AI-generated results for searches such as “perfume dupes” or alternatives to the plaintiff’s perfumes, linking to third-party websites selling these products and, in some cases, displaying sponsored ads above the AI-generated text.

The plaintiff argued that the use of its trade marks and the promotion of perfume imitations in the AI summaries infringed its trade mark rights and constituted unfair competition, alleging that the defendant benefited financially from directing users to dupe providers that are either advertisers or sell products through its platform services.

Following a warning letter, the plaintiff applied for a preliminary injunction.

The court’s decision

The Regional Court rejected the application for a preliminary injunction as partly inadmissible and otherwise unfounded, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant an EU-wide injunction.

EU trade mark law

The court held that the defendant did not use the trade marks in its own commercial communication. Under Article 9 EUTMR, trade mark use requires active conduct and direct or indirect control over the use of the sign. An injunction can only be directed against a party that is able to stop the infringing use.

Simply providing the technical infrastructure for displaying third-party content, even for remuneration, is insufficient.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that enabling advertisers to use trade marks as keywords does not constitute trade mark use by the search engine operator itself.

Against this background, the court found that the AI-generated overviews merely compile and summarise information that already exists. The defendant does not present AI-generated texts as its own content, adopt them as its own, or assume responsibility for the third-party content.

The average user understands the AI overview as a summary of external sources. The court considered it simply a new search format.

It further concluded that the defendant does not have sufficient control over the specific content of the AI-generated texts, since the overviews depend on information published by third parties.

It also held that the presence of sponsored products displayed alongside or outside the AI-generated overview did not constitute trade mark use by the search engine operator. Displaying advertisements only provides the technical framework for advertising and does not mean that the operator itself is using the trade marks.

German unfair competition law

The court also rejected the unfair competition claim, finding that the parties are not competitors: The plaintiff sells perfumes, the defendant provides search engine services.

Any benefit to perfume dupes sellers resulting from the AI-generated content is merely incidental and does not give rise to a direct economic benefit for the defendant, which neither sells the products nor receives payment for including third-party websites or links. While it receives payment for advertising, such advertisements do not form part of the AI-generated texts.

Conclusion

Merely generating AI summaries containing trade marks does not constitute trade mark use by the AI provider. Trade mark use requires presenting the content as its own commercial communication and exercising sufficient control over the use of the mark.

This decision stands in direct contrast to a decision of the Regional Court of Munich I dated 28 May 2026 (Case 26 O 869/26, GRUR-RS 2026, 11860), which found the operator of an internet search engine liable for AI-generated overviews displayed in response to search queries. The court held that the AI-generated overviews were not merely search results but constituted content attributable to the search engine operator itself.

As AI continues to reshape how information is created and accessed, its implications for trade mark law and other areas of law will remain an evolving and closely watched issue. It remains to be seen whether higher courts will provide clarity on these questions in the near future and what the outcome will be.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: Germany
Decision level: Regional Court of Berlin II
Date: 01 June 2026
Citation: 52 O 62/26 eV; GRUR-RS 2026, 12047